"So anyway, there are a number of you folks in what I would call the manosphere who are reaching some conclusions that I wonder if they're not going to be, um, more harmful than they are insightful...."

Says Bret Weinstein to Ben Davidson, in a podcast titled "Son Set in the Manosphere."

Weinstein has a lot of things he wants to say, and he takes the time spell them out calmly. Davidson is way more emotional — embarrassingly angry at women — to the point where I felt that he shouldn't be on the show at all, but he did give Weinstein a lot to bounce off from. 

What authenticity means these days.

1. "I am completely comfortable with having voted for Trump. It was my first time because of the apocalypse that was represented by the blue ticket. And so I just don't think there was any rational choice. We had an absolute emergency on our hands and this simple ability to vote for something that was in some way authentic made it the only game in town.... You know... President Biden was not the president in the meaningful sense.... And then at the point that that became implausible, to swap in an empty shirt is such a dire commentary on the state of the Republic" — said Bret Weinstein, in video at X.

2. "The beauty standards themselves are inauthentic — that is, unnatural and impossible to attain without surgical or technological intervention — but the open discussion around how to achieve them has been praised as a form of authenticity by fans, many of whom felt they had previously been gaslit by celebrities claiming their perfect forms were the result of diet and exercise.... Despite an expressed desire to be true to themselves, members of [Generation Z] have said they care less and less about authenticity from influencers — perhaps because the efforts to appear relatable have fallen flat" — from "An Era of Authenticity (or Something Like It)/Celebrities are being praised for openly discussing plastic surgery and Photoshop. Are they raging against a machine they created?" (NYT).

3. "Obviously, we’ve talked about authenticity, and if you watch Mamdani, he’s just electric, which [Kansas Governor Laura] Kelly is not. But they are authentically of their place"/"Her image in Kansas — she’s really leaned into the idea that she’s not a partisan figure. She grew up Republican. She is a moderate Democrat" — said Michelle Cottle, quoted in "There Is Hope for Democrats. Look to Kansas. Two Opinion writers on the Democratic governors who might just save the party" (NYT). 

4. "To say I know how our environment affects people? I have no idea. I really don't. And I don't want to know. I don't want it evaluated. I just want to keep trying to make the environment healthy and good and better — and authentic" — said Pat Murphy, manager of the Milwaukee Brewers, quoted in "MLB-leading Brewers cap best 60-game stretch in club history" (MLB.com).

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive...."

Wrote William Wordsworth, in "The French Revolution as It Appeared to Enthusiasts at Its Commencement."

The famous old line came to mind as I was listening to "The Joe Rogan Experience" and Joe, talking about the first days of the new Trump administration, exclaimed: "Wild times! Just wild! Like what a fun time to be alive!"

Bret Weinstein followed on:

"It just feels different. I have to tell you, I don't know what's coming, but it's at least, it's at least delightful not to know what to think."

He's got delight, as Wordsworth's French revolutionaries had bliss, but Weinstein professes to find his delight in not knowing what to think. He's distancing himself and enjoying his distance. I think of the spectators who lined the Place de la Révolution. Did they have reservations about the guillotine? Did they think I don't know what to think and find that unknowingness delightful? 

Weinstein's thoughtfulness continued:

"The cynicism that was required to understand what was going on two months ago is now no longer required. You actually have to think about what you're, what you're told is coming down the pike and think, well, I don't know. Is that a solution? Is it, is that, yeah. Is it a negotiating tactic or is it a solution that's actually being proposed and would it work?"

Withhold judgment. Meanwhile, 10 more heads will have rolled.

Joe Rogan and Bret Weinstein talk about the "crazy shit" Elon and his 6 "young wizards" have found over at USAID.

Full 3-hour episode — audio and transcript — here, at Podscribe. Full 3-hour video here, at YouTube.

ROGAN: "It's very strange that the media's ignoring it, especially the left wing media. It's just too big of a win for the right. And so they're just ignoring it. And then they're just highlighting the good things that USAID did, which I'm sure it probably did. Probably had to do some good things to like at least justify its existence."

WEINSTEIN: "As a cover story? I'm not even sure. Maybe. It doesn't change anything. Obviously this was a mechanism used to funnel money to all sorts of things that we didn't vote on, that don't make sense in light of our constitutional structure. And I'm, you know, I obviously have concerns like everybody else about where this train takes us, but seeing that structure broken up is, it's a huge relief."

Transcending conspiracy theory: "We should instead be figuring out what they’re trying to distract us from with all this conspiracy catnip."

From Bret Weinstein, at X:

These attacks are connected to each other through Fort Bragg, and to the NJ drones, which are connected to gravity manipulation, which connects it all to UAPs for the alien inclined. And it’s all happening between the election and inauguration. It’s clearly designed to be irresistible to “conspiracy theorists.” The smart money is on the Deep State and its partners preparing to vacate their offices and switch modes. They want us chasing our tails, and we are obliging them. We should instead be figuring out what they’re trying to distract us from with all this conspiracy catnip.

Let's just drop in for a moment on the massive squabble between Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk.

1. Substack links were never blocked. Matt’s statement is false.

2. Substack was trying to download a massive portion of the Twitter database to bootstrap their Twitter clone, so their IP address is obviously untrusted.

3. Turns out Matt is/was an employee of Substack.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 8, 2023

Sean Ono Lennon calls Facebook "crazy" and cries out against "baseless cancellations by our social media overlords."

This is crazy! Even for someone like me who is well aware of baseless cancellations by our social media overlords, to evict my friend @BretWeinstein is a new kind of insanity. I would go so far as to call it evil. You could not find a more measured and reasonable man than Bret. https://t.co/tGTm42FlTx

— Sean Ono Lennon (@seanonolennon) October 22, 2020

After that conspicuous hit, Facebook reversed itself, claiming to have "mistakenly flagged" the account as an "imposter":

My first indication of a problem was this message saying Facebook had "already reviewed" the suspension and the decision "can't be reversed". My tweet about it clearly got your attention, but I have 400k Twitter followers.

What protects regular people from such "mistakes" Liz? https://t.co/DEvvgOaV4i pic.twitter.com/z43TZJr5j5

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) October 23, 2020

Who, exactly, is Liz Bourgeois@Liz_Shepherd? On her Twitter page, she identifies herself as "@Facebook comms, formerly @TheDemocrats and @SpeakerPelosi. Mom of 2 tiny humans."

This is all very fishy. She's obviously a Democrat and completely open about it, and I take it she works at some level at Facebook and that "comms" means "communications" —  that is, public relations. It is bad PR to cancel Bret Weinstein and have Sean Ono Lennon pop up as his friend to call you insane overlords. 

Who believes Facebook just flagged Weinstein's account as an imposter? Why would such a harsh unreviewable cancellation message be sent to a person who'd just gotten flagged as an imposter? Automatic actions like that obviously can go wrong, so who believes it's something Facebook has set up to be unreviewable? Indeed, Facebook seems to have reviewed it, though if the method Weinstein used was getting Sean Ono Lennon to tweet about the injustice, that is hardly available as a method of review for anybody else. 

"It can't be reversed" — but it was reversed! Facebook didn't follow its own stated procedures. There's a special injustice in that. There's an alternative path to relief for some people — famous people or semi-famous people with ultra-famous connections — and the rest of you deplorables can slip down the memory hole forever.

I don't agree that it takes a threat to motivate Google to do this.

Google has enabled a system for identifying “black owned” businesses. This can not be morally or rationally defended. It is obviously a response to a credible threat.https://t.co/bStLYPFEYQ

— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) August 2, 2020

"It is, unfortunately, a zombified collective fighting a bogeyman that they have invented."

"... these people have de-individuated and they've become a true mob and they are pushing policies that make no sense and endanger us all...."

Do you remember Bret Weinstein?

Professor Bret Weinstein settles his case against Evergreen State College for $500,000.

He (and his wife) originally sued for $3.85 million, and he is resigning from the job.

"Bret Weinstein, the Evergreen State College professor who was driven from campus by a mob of students earlier this year, is preparing to file a $3.8 million claim against the public institution."

Campus Reform reports.

Evergreen State College biology professor Bret Weinstein is swarmed and cursed and hounded by students who are scarily deluded about their own righteousness.

[VIDEO NO LONGER AVAILABLE]

The man is condemned for objecting to a "Day of Absence" demonstration that took the form of asking white students to stay off campus for one day.

In the past, the Day of Absence has been a day where black and Latino students leave campus to highlight their significance on campus. This year students wanted to change the format. Instead of leaving campus themselves, they wanted white students and professors to leave campus, thereby creating a safe space for the students left behind. Professor Weinstein objected to that format and wrote and email saying he would not be leaving campus and encouraged others not to do so. 

The students are now calling him a racist and demanding that he resign.

He's also been warned by by the Chief of Police that he's not safe on campus, and he obliged (ironically) by staying off campus. He appears very calm and courageous in the video as he's confronted by a horrible mob, so I'm not sure why he didn't stand his ground and teach his class in the usual place (especially considering his position on the Day of Absence).

There's something in the video that I really like. Professor Weinstein says:

"There’s a difference between debate and dialectic. Debate means you are trying to win. Dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true. I am not interested in debate. I am only interested in dialectic, which does mean I listen to you, and you listen to me."

That's so well put. I've been saying for years I won't debate. Students at the law school would often set up events as debates and ask me to speak on one side of the debate. It was usually a side I wasn't even on, but that's beside the point. I resist the human interaction that is debate. I'd love to think the students would respond to the calmly stated, crisp debate/dialectic distinction, but it got this aggravated comeback:

"We don’t care what terms you want to speak on. This is not about you. We are not speaking on terms — on terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one."

ADDED: "You have lost that one" is an interesting declaration. It's so arrogant in its faux authoritativeness but if there's "one," there's also another. In this case, the next "one" is this public airing of the video, and it's pitifully obvious that the students have lost this one.

ALSO: This story disturbed me so much, but it took me longer than usual to come over and blog it, because I wanted to research the subject of students attacking teachers. It's a big subject, but I took the time to read "Student Attacks Against Teachers: The Revolution of 1966," by Youqin Wang. If you're wondering how bad things can get, read that.